Allahabad High Court Refuses To Direct Boarding School For Child Caught In Matrimonial Dispute, Says Child Is Neither A Weapon Nor A Victim

The Court emphasised that uprooting a child from an existing stable environment requires careful judicial scrutiny and expert evaluation grounded in the child’s welfare, and cannot be ordered merely because one parent considers it a better or more convenient arrangement.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh observed, “The Court has to ensure that in a legal battle between the conflicting couple, the child is not used as a weapon nor is he victimized. Sending a child to a boarding school cannot be an answer in black and white. It is necessary to psychologically evaluate the child to assess as to whether it is necessary to remove the child from the custody of his mother and put him in a boarding school. How the child will react is an important aspect to be considered before taking such a decision”.

“Unfortunately, there is nothing on record to shed light on this aspect of the matter and in absence of any expert’s report, this Court will not take a decision merely on the asking of the father or only to smoothen the implementation of the visitation order which has already been passed in favour of the father. In absence of any professional evaluation or expert report or specific circumstances, this Court observes that it cannot order to send the son to the boarding school”, the bench further categorically noted.

Senior Advocate Prashant Chandra appeared for the petitioner, and Senior Advocate H.G.S. Parihar appeared for the respondent.

The proceedings before the High Court arose out of an intra-court appeal (Special Appeal) challenging orders passed in custody and visitation proceedings between the estranged parents. The dispute over custody of the detenu and related visitation rights is part of substantive proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which are presently pending before the Family Court at Lucknow.

The appeal before the High Court primarily revolved around two issues raised by the father, seeking a change in custody of the child and, in the alternative, a direction to admit the child to a boarding school, both of which were examined in the context of the child’s welfare.

The bench specifically recorded that there was no material or expert report on record indicating how the child would psychologically react to being removed from the custody of the mother and placed in a boarding school. In the absence of such professional assessment or exceptional circumstances, the Court held that it could not pass an order directing the child to be sent to a boarding school.

At the same time, it was clarified that its refusal to pass such a direction does not foreclose the issue entirely. Observing that the substantive custody petition is already pending before the Family Court, the High Court held that it would be open to the parties to place appropriate expert reports or material before the Family Court to demonstrate whether boarding school education would be feasible and genuinely in the child’s best interest.

The Court further directed the Family Court to decide the matter expeditiously, and noted that it would also be at liberty to explore alternative arrangements, including whether the child could share vacations with both parents, so as to strengthen emotional bonding and ensure meaningful involvement of both parents in the child’s life.

Cause Title: Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and others [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO-4609-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate with Meha Rashmi, Ashok Kumar Singh, Anilesh Tewari, Siddhartha Sinha, Advocates

Respondent: C.S.C., H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate with Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Divyarth Singh Chauhan, Govind Narayan Shukla, Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocates

Click here to read/download the Order